C and B are the issues present with RIPv2. Scalability is an issue with RIPv2 because it is limited to a maximum of 15 hops, which means that it is not suitable for larger networks. Time to converge is an issue because when a link goes down, it can take up to 180 seconds for the entire network to converge and for the new best path to be determined.

Mehsotopes is a troll

As Network+ study book mentioned: Distance vector algorithms require that routers periodically propagate their entire routing table to their immediate neighbors. This is not scalable to environments with large numbers of networks. Distance vector algorithms provide for slower convergence than link state algorithms

RIPv2 is not an advanced time vector protocol, but rather a simple distance vector that will quickly drop routes from it's routing tables to ensure memory for others once the route has become unreachable. Route Poisoning is a mechanism used to immediately remove routes that have become unreachable. RIP & RIPv2 routing protocols share similar convergence times that is usually defaulted to 180 seconds by default, many are set to 20 seconds which is still very slow especially for larger networks. In most networking environments, RIP is not the preferred choice for routing as its time to converge and scalability are poor compared to EIGRP, OSPF, or IS-IS. However, it is easy to configure, because RIP does not require any parameters unlike other protocols.

it is b and c

I will select Time to converge (clear issue) and Scalability (which is very subjective). Route poisoning is a feature not an issue

B AND C IS CORRECT

A. Route poisoning C. Scalability

The disadvantages of RIP (Routing Information Protocol) include the following. ---Outdated, insecure, and slow. This is your parents' protocol. It was a thing before the Web was born. ---The more well-known problem of the 15 hop limitation in which data must travel ---Convergence time is terrible for information propagation in a network ---Metrics. It determines the number of hops from source to destination, and gives no regard to other factors when determining the best path for data to travel ---Overhead. A good example would be routing tables. These are broadcast at half-minute intervals to other routers regardless of whether the data has changed or not. It's essentially like those old cartoons where the town guard in the walled city cries out, '10 o' the clock and all is well!'. RIPv2 introduced more security and reduced broadcast traffic, which is relevant for some available answers here. Given all of this information, and the available answers, B) Time to converge and C) Scalability are definitely the correct answers.

B & C are correct B is the main problem C is because it still has a maximum of 15 hops - so doesn't work in larger networks. Nothing about being more susceptible to route poisoning. Mike Meyers "Most routers still support RIPv2, but RIP’s many problems, especially the time to convergence for large WANs, make it obsolete for all but small, private WANs that consist of a few routers." Emmett Dulaney "RIPv2: The second version of RIP dealt with the shortcomings of the original design. Authentication was included to enable secure transmissions; also, it changed from a network-wide broadcast discovery method to a multicast method to reduce overall network traffic. However, to maintain compatibility with RIP, RIPv2 still supports a limit of 15 hops."

A and B RIPv2 suffered from scalability issues due to a relatively low maximum hop count of 15 routing devices. Compared to more modern dynamic routing protocols, RIPv2's methods for selecting optimal routes and the substantial convergence time it takes to recalculate paths renders it nearly obsolete https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/comparing-dynamic-routing-protocols?ng_gateway_return=true&full=true#:~:text=RIPv2%20suffered%20from%20scalability%20issues,paths%20renders%20it%20nearly%20obsolete.

B and C